It's pure ego at this point. That and the fact it takes almost literally zero effort to do. Realistically I could do it myself with the color settings on my TV.
LordofHats wrote: Thinking of it, I think I feel the same about Doctor Strange. That character really didn't come into his own until he started bantering with Thor and Tony in later movies. In his own origin film, I found him to be bland and the film was only cool for being very different from other MCU films with the magic and all.
I almost made the exact same comparison. CapM and Strange are VERY similar films in my mind. They both follow the Iron Man formula but lack RDJ's defining performance to stand above it. Strange probably gets the leg up just for the phenomenal recreations of the psychedelic comic art and clever rewind fight (that's really soured by one of the worst villains in the MCU). Carol's film mostly lacks a gimmick outside of being set in the 90's but that not being relevant for most of the film. I think it would probably be more memorable if they went bigger with the Supreme Intelligence at the end or did more with Ronan. They kind of subverted the conflict out of it.
RDJ was a huge factor in creating inertia for the MCU. His performances paved over a lot of bumps and were really the links that held everything together at first. And Favreau showed them the look and tone to move forward with. They undeniably caught some lightning in the bottle with the MCU. Plenty of credit goes to Feige, but without certain individuals it wouldn't have become what it did.
I was actually thinking the other day how the MCU formula is almost like an adaptation of the "Marvel method" from the comics (in which the writer provides a summary and dialogue and the artist draws it all out, compared to having the writer dictate everything panel by panel). Feige often brings in indy directors to deal with story and characters, but then has experienced second unit directors on hand to block out and shoot all the action, etc. WB/DC kinda tried this with Birds of Prey to mixed results. Snyder is like the non-MM comic writer...and in fact I think he does sketch out his own storyboards. I dunno...thought it was kinda funny how there are some parallels.
Voss wrote: every possible signature aspect of comic books
Are you really unaware that there are black and white comics? What an odd statement.
gorgon wrote: RDJ was a huge factor in creating inertia for the MCU. His performances paved over a lot of bumps and were really the links that held everything together at first. And Favreau showed them the look and tone to move forward with. They undeniably caught some lightning in the bottle with the MCU. Plenty of credit goes to Feige, but without certain individuals it wouldn't have become what it did.
So would you say he was the rug that really held the room together of the MCU?
Voss wrote: every possible signature aspect of comic books
Are you really unaware that there are black and white comics? What an odd statement.
Well, to be fair Marvel and DC are traditionally associated with 'four-colour' comics. The colour is a key attribute.
I'm sure there are plenty of black and white comics. But when Marvel turned up in black and white it was normally in British comics like the early Star Wars[/]i and [i]Doctor Who Weekly where a super-hero story would take second billing - Usually The Uncanny X-Men.
Voss wrote: every possible signature aspect of comic books
Are you really unaware that there are black and white comics? What an odd statement.
Other than Manga? No actually XD Neat. I mean I guess I know about some comics that used it artistically, but usually when I think of mainstream hero comics I think of colored pages.
gorgon wrote: RDJ was a huge factor in creating inertia for the MCU. His performances paved over a lot of bumps and were really the links that held everything together at first. And Favreau showed them the look and tone to move forward with. They undeniably caught some lightning in the bottle with the MCU. Plenty of credit goes to Feige, but without certain individuals it wouldn't have become what it did.
So would you say he was the rug that really held the room together of the MCU?
It’ll certainly be interesting to see a post-RDJ Marvel universe.
It may turn out he and Chris Evans were the mortar holding it altogether. Here’s hoping that if (when?) they return, it’s not an attempt to revive an ailing franchise.
Please note I am not calling the MCU an ailing franchise. At all.
I think it's a reasonable concern. Lots of shows and franchises have suffered from casting shake ups. It's not always easy keeping dynamics in play when the people who made them work aren't around anymore.
The unfortunate passing of Chadwick Boseman doesn't help. The MCU seemed to be setting T'Challa up to take on a leadership role in a post Tony/Steve world. He had Cap's heart in a way and could have served that role. I'm not sure what the future of the Panther character is now. Boseman didn't quite command the role like RDJ, but I think he did have Evan's sort of charisma where he would grow on audiences as films went forward.
I'm sure Letitia Wright will take up the mantle. She's already proven herself capable of stealing the show, even if her Panther might end up being more Tony than Steve.
I think she, along with Tom Holland are probably the two breakout stars going forward with the latter being hard to rely on with the rights issues. Their remaining reliable options are Helmsworth and Pratt. I think there's a lot riding on Dr Strange and Capt Marvel 2 to make some big strides as well. I suspect they'll be quick to give Olsen more to do after the success of WandaVision too.
Of course, there's also completely new stuff. The mere existence of Eternals is an impossible wildcard. The Lego leaks of what some of that is going to be is crazy. That's easily their next Guardians level risk. Shang Chi is RIGHT before it and I'm mildly curious if there's a link there given the characters and colors.
I feel like Doctor Strange can still come into his own. The first movie felt a bit too much like it was repeating Tony's story in a way, but with Tony gone he might manage to stand out a bit more.
I'm not too sure they will be setting up Letitia Wright, there's been some controversies involving her recently, that might be straying a bit too far into politics for the forum, that might make Disney a little bit wary.
Compel wrote: I'm not too sure they will be setting up Letitia Wright, there's been some controversies involving her recently, that might be straying a bit too far into politics for the forum, that might make Disney a little bit wary.
Ah yes, I hadn't caught that. Kind of a problem when your employer makes most of their money on theme parks and cruise ships...
gorgon wrote: RDJ was a huge factor in creating inertia for the MCU. His performances paved over a lot of bumps and were really the links that held everything together at first. And Favreau showed them the look and tone to move forward with. They undeniably caught some lightning in the bottle with the MCU. Plenty of credit goes to Feige, but without certain individuals it wouldn't have become what it did.
So would you say he was the rug that really held the room together of the MCU?
It’ll certainly be interesting to see a post-RDJ Marvel universe.
It may turn out he and Chris Evans were the mortar holding it altogether. Here’s hoping that if (when?) they return, it’s not an attempt to revive an ailing franchise.
Please note I am not calling the MCU an ailing franchise. At all.
While I think it's a concern, I suspect they'll carry on just fine. The MCU brand is enormously strong now. There's almost too much brand equity to fail unless they start releasing stinker after stinker. And they kinda specialize in not doing that. They're content to hit singles and doubles and let the brand's inertia turn them into box office triples and home runs.
That's why other studios were so envious of the MCU. In no reality should Captain Marvel be a billion-dollar movie. But put that Marvel logo on it and give it a choice spot in the lineup, and voila!
Voss wrote: every possible signature aspect of comic books
Are you really unaware that there are black and white comics? What an odd statement.
...not in context.
But sure, I'll wait for the extensive library of black & white Superman, Batman, Justice League, etc comics (that aren't one-off gimmicks)
Why an extensive library? That wasn't the claim to begin with nor the one in dispute. If it makes you feel better the old Superman newspaper strip was B&W. Batman: Black and White is a popular ongoing series starting in 1996 and currently on volume 5. The original TMNT were B&W as are comic stories like Maus and The Crow. Most DC and Marvel are color but overall color isn't a "signature aspect of comics" in general.
LunarSol wrote: I liked Captain Marvel on the whole. The Skrull twise was nice and its hard to hate Samuel L. Jackson befriending a cat. It lacks punch though, in no small part because it was released in the middle of Infinity. Need to watch it again out of that context.
I found Captain Marvel to be as offensive as a fart. It was, quite literally, a 1980's action hero movie, akin to the initial run of MCU hero movies. It had zero depth and none of the glam a modern movie has. It's an insult to say it's a women empowerment movie. The female fans deserved better.
And it isn't "I hate Wamyn!" Thor 2 was a movie that's just as bad. Bad movies are bad because they are bad. Captain Marvel would have been bad if it had anyone else in the hot seat. As would Ghostbuster 2016. I dislike the actors they used but that doesn't mean it would have magically been better with the best actors in the world.
Justice League is like that. It's bad. I disliked the add-on bits like the CGI, and some of the actors aren't my cup of tea but the *story*, the *script* and the whole package is bad. I dislike some of the plot holes, I dislike some of the characters and I dislike the whole movie. I don't think the Snyder cut changed much. It improved some places but opened up other places with issues.
Presumably this is why WB exec Ann Sarnoff in that Variety interview threw *buckets* of cold water on the idea of more JL films and other stuff. Trying to shut down the Snyder Twitter mob. But that's like throwing red meat to that bunch, LOL.
FWIW, I did actually think her comments were tone-deaf. I can only assume the interview was done weeks ago, and that the WB studio -- not necessarily HBO Max -- expected a highly negative reaction to ZSJL. That the 'never again will your eyes be assailed by superhero films from Zack Snyder' tone would play really well. As it turned out, it kinda put a damper on some fairly positive buzz coming out of that weekend. Which is just...dumb...when DC films can't seem to buy solid buzz.
Should have handled it a little differently even if there's no desire to 'restore the Snyderverse'.
I feel like I already watched the definitive version of the Justice League. I saw they had the french dub on a plane ride back from France, and it was, as I predicted, the funniest goddamn thing I've ever seen in my entire life. Any time henry caville said a badly dubbed line in french with his wibbly wobbly cgi upper lip I nearly lost my goddamn mind.
I don't get why people are so riled up both in favour or against Snyder. Yeah it's not the best director in the world and some of his sticks tends to play silly compared with the grandeur he wins to, but clearly he has ideas about what he wants and an interpretation to offer to the viewers
Nolan, to compare with another filmaker that worked for DC with similar dark tone, is for sure a better director (technically speaking) and his visual and music are superior .. but his ideas are much less poignant and, in the end, forgettable. Both are legit way of interpreting the medium.
On an unrelated note: is it true the they have chose to hire the Destroyer or Worlds JJ Abrams?
PS: Reading critiques about fanboy that exceed online on Dalla is a funny vital.
I don't think people want some guys interpretation of the medium any more. They want to see a movie about the actual characters they like. Not Zack Snyders brooding Superman, or Nolans murderer idiot Batman. They just want to see the actual Justice League do actual Justice League stuff.
Am I crazy, or is there not really much wrong with what the Snyder crowd is doing here? Sure, it's annoying, and I assume the guys behind Godzilla vs Kong aren't too happy about it either, but it seems as if the review bombing is intended as a form of protest. Protests are supposed to be annoying. That's kind of the point. This is admittedly a pretty minor thing to get upset about, and Snyder fans could probably get a lot more done if they tried being positive instead of negative about their movies for once, but if I had to choose between leaving negative reviews on a website and harassment of actual people, I would take the former any day of the week.
Cybtroll wrote:but clearly he has ideas about what he wants and an interpretation to offer to the viewers.
I like to think that everyone has an idea about what they want and an interpretation to offer. Why does Snyder get to blow several tens of millions of dollars on what is essentially a vanity project, and not other directors who do have skill to create a film that's not overly bloated, and a more comprehensive understanding of the characters?
Simply "having ideas" isn't enough to cut it for me.
Cybtroll wrote:but clearly he has ideas about what he wants and an interpretation to offer to the viewers.
I like to think that everyone has an idea about what they want and an interpretation to offer. Why does Snyder get to blow several tens of millions of dollars on what is essentially a vanity project, and not other directors who do have skill to create a film that's not overly bloated, and a more comprehensive understanding of the characters?
Simply "having ideas" isn't enough to cut it for me.
Well, if you think Snyder doesn't 'understand' the characters and their world...maybe you should check out JJ Abrams' script for Superman Flyby. Which could have happened. This old article from AICN breaks it down:
Interesting that Moriarty said in that *2002* article that "Warner Bros. seems determined to micro-manage every property to death." LOL. And you can see how the same kinds of ideas kept circulating through the studio over the years. There was another BvS movie in development before BvS. Superman was going to die in Superman Lives and Superman Flyby before he died in Snyder's BvS. George Miller had a Justice League film before Snyder's (that almost happened...as in cast was on location already). Henry Cavill was almost cast for Superman Flyby. Etcetera
Anyway, people nitpick Man of Steel to death, but they should understand that Superman Flyby is what we could have gotten...and could still get.
Exec's get stuck on the idea of cashing in on specific successes. Death of Superman being one of the biggest examples of this other. The other notable example being Venom.
Nolan and Snyder are both phenomenal cinematic photographers, but they have a hard time writing people. Dialogue is not at all a strong suit and most memorable lines are more likely spoken at the audience. There's a lot of depth to the visual storytelling, however and certain people really latch on to that, while others more interested in the people part of things tend to be more repulsed by the same style.
I think the through line with Superman is that the studio execs just don't have much (any?) faith in the character on the big screen. They glommed onto killing him because they aren't sure what to do with him, even if there are plenty of creatives who do. If you consider the recent film efforts (including the failed ones), they're mostly reimaginings of the character or Chris Reeve doppelgangers (because the execs know that worked back in the 70s/80s).
Superman Lives would have been an auteur piece with the weird stylings of Burton. Flyby rebooted Kal-El's whole background and world for no clear gain or reason. Returns tried to duplicate the Reeve/Donner films from decades earlier, even casting a dude who looked eerily like the previous, dead actor when in glasses. Man of Steel was the Nolans' attempt at a more 'grounded' version of the character, helmed by an auteur director. The Coates-JJ enterprise seems to point to a reimagining. Toby Emmerich said "We’re confident that his take on Superman will give fans a new and exciting way to see the Man of Steel.”
I think people can nitpick MoS, but the table was set -- characters, actors, and world -- for potentially excellent sequels...perhaps under a different director. It's not like MoS did BADLY at the box office. It outearned Batman Begins by like $300 million. That's *really good* for the first film in a reboot series. And they've had talented people pitch them on MoS sequels. But the studio has no faith in the character. Unlike Batman. They feel that Batman will always make bank, which is why we get new Batmen every 5 years.
Also according to #SamaTV’s report, from the 2.2M households who started watching #ZackSnydersJusticeLeague on #HBOMax, only 36% (around 792k households) actually finished it.
In the U.K. the rate was better. From 954k households, 48% (around 458k) finished the #SnyderCut. 5/ pic.twitter.com/IYDkCIztTu — Luiz Fernando (@Luiz_Fernando_J) March 29, 2021
and that's going to be an overestimate as some will leave it running while they wander off and do something else
(i'd love to know how this compares with a 'standard' superhero movie as while it sounds bad it could be no real different to most)
LunarSol wrote: Exec's get stuck on the idea of cashing in on specific successes. Death of Superman being one of the biggest examples of this other. The other notable example being Venom.
Nolan and Snyder are both phenomenal cinematic photographers, but they have a hard time writing people. Dialogue is not at all a strong suit and most memorable lines are more likely spoken at the audience. There's a lot of depth to the visual storytelling, however and certain people really latch on to that, while others more interested in the people part of things tend to be more repulsed by the same style.
Thats a good point and probably why I dislike Nolan films so much - people are just carboard cutouts in front of the imagery - and female characters in particular are worse or non existant.
